Beach Berm Lawsuit Is Filed

Malibu’s Broad Beach homeowners face fines of up to $15,000 a day for hiring bulldozers last month to scoop sand off the public beach and pile it onto private property in front of their oceanfront homes, under a lawsuit filed Wednesday by state officials.

The suit, filed on behalf of two state agencies by California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, alleges that a homeowners group illegally took sand from the state-owned beach and converted it to private use.

The piles of sand, the suit says, also impeded public access to the 1.1-mile stretch of beach. The 108-home community has gained notoriety over the years for posting “Private Property” signs and hiring security guards on all-terrain vehicles to shoo away beachgoers.

“The California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission are asking us to use the enforcement tools in the law to make sure that this kind of activity doesn’t happen again,” said Matt Rodriguez, a senior assistant attorney general. “That’s what the suit is all about.”

The lawsuit seeks fines of $30,000 for each violation and additional penalties of up to $15,000 a day for any “knowing and intentional” activities that violate the Coastal Act.

Depending on how the violations are calculated, the fines could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars for the roughly monthlong period the sand berm existed.

Broad Beach homeowners had earthmovers pile up sand in front of their homes beginning June 1 or June 2, according to the commission staff. By July 1, the homeowners, following a cease-and-desist order, had brought in earthmovers and had the sand put back.

“We tried to settle this amicably and obviate the need for litigation,” said Lisa Haage, the Coastal Commission’s chief of enforcement.

But the homeowners would not agree to pay any fines, she said.

A spokesman for Broad Beach homeowners said the community did not intend to build a sand berm or thwart public access, but was simply trying to restore the natural sand dunes that had been washed away by flooding during last winter’s heavy storms.

“As the storms were raging in January 2005 and the dunes protecting the homes were being washed out and damaged, emergency equipment was brought onto the beach,” the homeowners wrote in a statement of defense.

When the work was being done, the statement said, “it was believed that no [state] coastal permit was required.”

Haage said there was no evidence that the homeowners built the berm to protect their homes from erosion or restore coastal dunes.

She also said that the homeowners might have to do more work to restore dune vegetation that was buried under tons of sand.

The lawsuit says the berm disrupted the seasonal spawning of grunion, a small fish, and “made it more difficult for members of the public to walk along the beach.”